The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-22
| DRUGGISTS Held LIABLE
FOR THE RETAIL LIQUOR LII.
CENSE OF 1881 TO 1886,
With Interest for Each Year, Which
Makes the Total Liability
About $4,000.
ESPECIAL TO THE APPELL.I


NASHVILLE, TENN, February 2l.-
The Supreme Court todsy rendered a
decision in what are known as the
druggists tax suits. These sui 8 were
brought by the State and county in
1885 in the Ohancery Court at Nsth-
vile to compel the oefendants to pay
the real lquor dealers tax for the
years 1881 so 1884 aud 1885, involving
about $4,000. The court below gave
JUDGMENT for the tex for the years Of
1882 SO "a and 1856, exclud ing all
interest, penalties and the tax for 1881.
Both complsinants and defendants
appealed the cases to the
Supreme Court. The court de-
cided the cases this morning
holding that the defendants were liza
BILE for the retail liquor dealers tax
for the years 1885 ~ 1885, inclusive,
also gave judgment for interest on the
tax for each year from the date it
should have been paid, reversing the
decision of tie Chancellor ss t. the
tax OF 1881 and the interest on the
9th era yesrs. This decision will in
crease the total liability OF the de-.
Pendants to about $4,000. Tbs Court,
in it's opinion, h. ID that a druggitt
was not liable for the liqour deal
ers' tax for the sale OF metic.
inal compounds in which liquors
enter as component part, such ss
tinclurts, extracts, etc. The State,
however, did not insist on their liza
bi y for sales of this character. The
Court also held that the defendants
were not hAb'a for the liquor dealers
TAX prior to 1885 for sales strictly upon
pres; rlptions OF r4gu ar Irictioing
physicians, but for 1885 they wtr4
liable fer sales on prescr ptions. In
deliv' r,Dg the opinion Of the cour
Judge Lur.on faid: "The evidence OF
the defendants ia thtrsfC re- competent
and the seton of the Chancellor in
everything their obi ,cti ms was cor
rect. 1t is unnecessary to distinguish
their codes one from another, for it Is
clearly shown that each OF the defend
ants had In each OF the years 1881,
1882, 1883, 1884 and 1885 openly sold
b tn spirituous and vinons liqu )rs,
without any regard to having a pre-
scrip'ion from regularly predicting
phys clan. II is true that to some ex-
tent an effort was made to sell only
for medicinal purposes, but
such Gales bsfore the act of 1885
were valid only when made in
good faith and upon prescription. Il ch
of the defendants procured liquor
dealers licenses required by the
United states Government, and paid
the tax required by Federal law. ID ring
the character OF business they did they
were equally bound 10 take out the
liquor dealers license required by the
State and pay to it the tx requir' d
by all liquor dealers, Failing to do
this they are each liable for the
full amount Of the tax for l8Sl-82-83-
1876, both for the State aud county,
and for this decree vii be
rendered, with interest from the
time each tax was due" The decision
in these cases, while not involving
over $4,000 or $4,000, settles the
principle of the liability. II 'is esti-
mated that the entire tax due the
State from druggists under this decis-
ion will be over 500, 700. These cases
were brought as test cases, and 1t Is
presumed that other druggists who
have sold liquors as retail dealers will
pay without further Ii igation.i